Was on O'Reilly. Rewinding my DVR now to get the facts. I trust Larwyn, who tipped me, but this is so serious I don't dare wing it.

From the show, from a close review of the segment:

Palm Beach Chief of Police Michael Reiter has asked Rush Limbaugh's foe, State Attorney Bruce Krischer, to recuse himself from a case, believing he's in the tank for the defendant.

The accused is a dedicated Democrat, as is Krischer himself. The accused, Jefferey Epstein, has donated more than a $100,000 to Democrats, including Hillary! Clinton.

Reiter wants to charge Jeffrey Epstein for four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor with girls as young as fourteen.

Krischer was somehow only able to get a prostitution charge against Epstein from a grand jury, despite a house filled with hidden cameras and pictures of young girls.

Reiter is seeking the aid of the FBI.

Note the DA didn't need to take the charges to a grand jury. He could have just filed charges on his own.

There were 17 witnesses against Epstein. Two "house managers" -- whatever they are; butlers and overseers, I guess -- are prepared to testify about having to clean up Jello and the like after Epstein's "parties" with the fourteen year old girls.

Krischer used the grand jury to tank the case, presenting the weakest case possible in order to have a pretext to not charge Epstein. That's the suspicion.

It seems like a good suspicion.

FoxNews' judge notes that just as a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, a prosecutor can prevent a grand jury from indicting a multiple statutory-rapist by deliberately throwing the case. (I juiced that up. He just said a prosecutor could guide a grand jury whichever way he likes.)

And then blaming the grand jury.

Napolitano thinks it's a solid possible case for federal intervention, as the DA may very well be guilty of, among other things, a deliberate failure to apply the protections of the law equally under the 14th A.

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Bumped: Compare and Contrast.

I know-- you thought that Lamont drew his strength from the very-liberal New Left of the Kos netroots.

Well, the New York Times is smarter than you are, and they know better. Lieberman did not, in fact, have the support of the 48% of his party's voters who were "moderate."

That's the old definition of "moderate." Get with it, square. Generally, by "moderate," we have meant those voters who tend be equally drawn to either party, or to belong to one party while agreeing with some principles of the opposite party. Thus, "moderate Republicans" were, we always thought, more Democratic in attunement than partisan or ideological Republicans, and vice versa as regards "moderate Demcorats."

The New York Times is here to inform you that "moderate" now means the more extreme, partisan, and ideological wing of the liberal/Democratic coalition.

Mr. LiebermanÂ’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. ItÂ’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists....

No, it's really not. Connecticut may like to call itself the "Land of Steady Habits," but its chief political steady habit is voting for liberal Democratic Presidential candidates by fairly lopsided margins. It is nestled snugly between the state that likes to call itself The Land of Senator Hillary Clinton and another state called The Land Where Kennedys Get To Kill People Pretty Much Scot-Free Because We Love Them That Fucking Much.

Based on some kind of state motto or nickname I've never heard of, and I'll bet hasn't been seen in newsprint for fifty years (and never before that), the New York Times just tried to sell you Connecticut, the Ultimate Deep-Purple Swing State, where the last eight Presidential races have been decided, a little slice of Moussouri conveniently located right on the nation's eastern seaboard.

They think you're that stupid. They really do.

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.

Unmoderate? Immoderate I thought. Anyway, forget it, they're rolling.

A war that began at the presidentÂ’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administrationÂ’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

These are the concerns of "moderates," expressed by "moderates" on the NYT editorial board, stated in very "moderate" language.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda.

Moderates are always stopping me on the street to exclaim "The political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda!"

They're so annoying like that. Sometimes I have to run from a throng of rampaging moderates who just want to moderately scream at me about the Patriot Act.

Traditional beliefs like every personÂ’s right to a day in court...

Note that by "person," the New York Times meant "foreign terrorist captured on enemy soil during a war."

That's the way "moderates" refer to such folk. As "persons." Just personable people-person people, no different than you or me, except they jack off to Muslim terrorist murder-porn.

But otherwise? Just good folks.

.. or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme.

"Moderates" believe that wars are just like Stratego. You just need a "plan" -- like keeping your Spy hidden behind one bomb in the middle of the board, to get that damn Marshall when he comes rampaging through -- and it's a snap.

War isn't about willpower, or armaments, or training, or adapting to an enemy's tactics as he adapts to yours. No, as everything else in life seems to be to our famously moderate urban intellectual class, war is preeminently about IQ.

The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him.

Again -- imperial presidency, dawning of a new fascism, the American Republic in bloody tatters: all moderate-talk.

Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

"The real center." I think I know where the "real center" of this country is.

I think you all do too.

I think you think the "real center" of this country, the ideological fulcrum upon which our politics is balanced like a see-saw, is a bit to the left of you, because you're almost all conviction conservatives or partisan Republicans to one extent or another. You know you're a little to the right of center. Ergo, the center is a bit to the left of you.

The New York Times Editorial Board thinks it knows where the "real center" of the country is.

They don't imagine that the "real center" is to the right of themselves.

They think the "real center" is located precisely in the middle of the New York Times Editorial Board.

For such smart people, they can be rather... I don't want to say "dumb," so I'll say "intellectually incurious."

Posted by: Ace at 03:52 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 928 words, total size 6 kb.

Via Drubbs:

NYT WEDS: Ned Lamont preparing to shake up staff, refocus his race in appeal to Connecticut moderates... Developing...

But wait!!!! The New York Times just told us Lamont's entire base of support was nothing but the "moderates" of Connecticut, the "Land of Steady Habits!"

How can this be? How can the New York Times assure me one day that "moderates" turned out in droves to vote for Lamont, and yet six days later, Lamont himself says he needs a greater appeal with "moderates"?

Did the New York Times make a typographical error of some kind?

Surely they wouldn't have flat-out lied to the public, right? I mean, the New York Times would never flatly, deliberately, unequivocally lie to the public, would it?

Will they be issuing a correction?

Tip of the cheese-filled hotdog to Riehl World for the heads up on this shocking news.

He adds that this probably means the end of Jane's unofficial campaign strategist position.

Jane, don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

Although it will hurt to lose a "moderate" voice like hers.

Posted by: Ace at 03:51 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

I hope he'll reconsider, or just take a breather. He sounds burned out and frustrated, which is something that hits an awful lot.

Anyway, say your good-byes, don't-quits, or congratulations-on-returning-to-normal-lifes to Dave.

I blame myself. I rattled him twice recently for having stuff I'd already posted -- the oldest of the old, that means. I think he realized at that point, when he was posting stuff even I had, his heart just wasn't in it anymore.

But hopefully in time blogging won't seem old anymore, and he'll grace us again with his humor, his observations, and, of course, his monkeys.

Thanks to Digital Brownshirt for the heads up.

Posted by: Ace at 02:43 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

But withhold judgement until you get to the end:

The decision to deploy troops to join the 15,000-strong Unifil peacekeeping force was made by Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, in consultation with three Cabinet ministers. They agreed to take on such a role in their first venture into the Middle East because of the difficulties of recruiting enough properly equipped peacekeepers for the mission.

“We have to do this, not in spite of the Holocaust, but because of it,” Werner Sonne, a leading commentator, said on German state television. “If German troops guard Israel’s borders, they are there to protect Jewish lives. Frankly, there has never been a better reason to bring in soldiers in German uniform.”

...

Frau Merkel seems ready to send some 3,000 troops, of whom about 1,000 will be Pioneers with heavy earth-moving equipment to help to rebuild airports and harbours. The navy, already in the eastern Mediterranean on Operation Active Endeavour, would be strengthened with frigates to patrol the coast of Lebanon.

...

France will command the force with lead elements arriving in the coming days. The French appear ready to send 5,000 soldiers, Italy 3,000 soldiers and Turkey a further 1,500. German diplomats say that one priority is to convince other Muslim countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, to commit troops as well.

Yeah, as much as those as humanly possible.

And yet, of course, some Germans suspect crafty manipulation by those cunning Juden:

...

Germany has been encouraged to send a big contingent by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, a sign that the Holocaust taboo is beginning to crumble. In an interview with the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung this month, Mr Olmert said he had told Frau Merkel that Israel had “absolutely no problem with German soldiers in southern Lebanon”.

“There is at the moment no nation that is behaving in a more friendly way towards Israel than Germany,” Mr Olmert said. “If Germany can contribute to the security of the Israeli people, that would be a worthwhile task for your country. I would be very happy if Germany participated.”

Yet some German observers believe that a degree of calculation lies behind the Israeli enthusiasm. In a fast-moving exchange of fire, German soldiers might give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt.

They're afraid they might give Jews the benefit of the doubt? This is the worry that wakes them up screaming at night, huh?

About a thousand years of history would tend to suggest that such an impulse can be, with effort, successfully held in check by the Germans.

Emphases added, of course.

Thanks to Dawnsblood.

Unfair Cheap Shot Against the Germans? Dawnsblood says that Germany has been Israel's biggest friend in Europe, which I don't know is true, and anyway it seems like being the biggest stud at a combination Star Trek/Settlers of Cataan mixer.

Still, Dawnsblood offers this and a few other links to demonstrate the Germans are relatively pro-Israel.

I don't know. I think they put up a bit of a show. I still believe scratch a German, find a Nazi. I've read too many stories about Germans being angry about, for example, streets named after Holocaust survivors and the like. "Why must they keep reminding us of their problems?!" is the sort of thing I've seen quoted, when people are speaking in honest anger.

Posted by: Ace at 02:33 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

topsecretK9 says this isn't like the normal kidnapping:

...he said it was still unclear who is holding the journalists.

Steve Centanni, 60, a U.S. citizen, and Olaf Wiig, 36, of New Zealand, were seized by masked gunmen near the headquarters of the Palestinian security services.

No one has claimed responsibility for Monday's kidnapping, and police said no one has come forward with demands. Major militant groups denied they had anything to do with the abduction...

By all accounts, typical kidnappings (can't. believe. I. wrote. that.) are carried out by small time groups who use kidnappings to make money and or Job demands (??? frankly don't get, --"You better let me work at your Palestinian Authority, you better!"- WTF is that?) .

OK. So why hasn't any of these small time thug groups made contact by now? I just got an eerie feeling, the intention is to do something bad that's why no one is taking credit...I hope I am really off base.

(of course they could be in contact and just saying otherwise, but the PA is now stepping in)

Also, does anyone know, do kidnappings that have nothing to do with the PA usually take place a block or two under their nose?)

Quotes from Haaretz.

There's little doubt these terrorist media-whores know who their friends are, and who their friends are not.

We should hope and/or pray, according to where we are on the secularist/religious spectrum.

Does anyone know how the rest of the MSM is playing this? For some reason I suspect this is getting less coverage than previous kidnappings of reporters and cameramen.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm inclined to believe that this is just a trick of the light (and perhaps some minor contrast/color adjutment) making these sad hands on a barbed wire fence look like they were shopped in from Myst III.

You be the judge.

I've seen hands like that before. They were always holding the Silver Key. Which makes me wonder why these poor oppressed Gitmo detaines just don't open the Black Gate with the Silver Key, grab the Red Armor and the Lightning Gun, and move on to the next level.

Correction: I headlined this as "Fauxtography at Gitmo?" It's not Gitmo, it's Abu Ghraib. A bit of a brainfart on that one.

Posted by: Ace at 01:39 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh. Alas, it's a Republican. I imagine the Democrats will be less willing to concede their anti-military biases.

A U.S. lawmaker apologized on Tuesday to U.S. Marines under investigation in the deaths of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha in a statement his office said spared him from a libel lawsuit.

Minnesota Republican Rep. John Kline, a retired Marine Corps colonel, issued a three-paragraph statement under a deal with lawyers for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, one of the Marines under investigation.

Wuterich's lawyers filed a libel lawsuit against another congressman, Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, on August 2 following his comments on the case.

...

"I am, of course, very concerned regarding any allegations surrounding misconduct by U.S. troops in Iraq. Such allegations must be taken seriously, but we should never rush to judgment before all the facts are known and the military criminal justice process is completed," Kline said.

Kline added, "I want to express my sincere apology" to the Marines in the unit that was in Haditha last November 19.

Get 'em.

H/t Matt, who has some kind of website called "Drubs Report" or something.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Democracy, whiskey, big inflated boobies!

...

"The young woman went through surgery two years ago to have a larger chest," he said. "During the war she was wounded in the chest by shrapnel" that got stuck in the implants instead of penetrating further.

The woman did not emerge from her ordeal completely unscathed, however.

"The shrapnel was removed but the implant had to be replaced," Govrin said.

I hope she made the prudent, life-preserving decision to size-up.

Thanks to Drew.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote:

Do you realize how bad comment-spammers have gotten on websites?

Is there a law against spamming not email but websites with unsolcited advertisements?

I called the FBI today because, apart from the typical hardcore porn come-ons, I got a big dose of child-porn comment spam, featuring lovely names like...well, I can't say. I don't want to include bad words in your email. Let's just say they are sexually explicit and involve young boys.

Please suggest some serious penalties to Sen. Coburn, if they're not already on the books. It should be illegal to advertise without consent on websites with this spam, and porn spam and CHILD porn spam is freakin' completely out of bounds.

I'm so angry about this. Forgive me for writing you about it. I just am at my wits' end. Now they're turning MY site into a child porn board!

Thank you,

Ace

Sen. Coburn is blog-friendly, and I'm pretty sure he's a pretty solid opponent of child porn.

This is minor legislation, but I don't see how anyone can be against it. What would the argument in favor of comment-spam be, precisely? The right to vandalize someone's intellectual property with uncompensated advertising? Where's that in the First Amendment?

People pay money to advertise on this site. They shouldn't be allowed to advertise freely here. My consent is required. Or they can start paying me $1000 a spam-ad.

And I think the child-porn stuff is crossing the Rubicon. It may be a trivial concern that blogs are being spammed by this vile shit, but now that they've upped it to the headline-grabbing realm of child porn, well, they may have just fucked themselves sideways.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.